388 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

Raflik, on 27 January 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

And how's those "councils" will be elected.

How many representative? Each unit aligned to a faction(then ppl start to make many very small units just to have voice), or just few "ELYTED" units(then the grumble will start "why they, but not us?"

How much power will each person in council have? - everyone will be equal (then some derp aliance could make unfavourable move), or someone will have decisive vote (again: why they, not we)?

Power in such councill will depend on unit size (many units claim themselves as 100+ or even 500+, yea... maybe they have 500 ppl invited in unit but half of them are inactive, and other half live in 12h different timezone), or skill (how to measure such).

Councils systems provide too much injustice (like real politics) so it shouldn't be added in my opinion.
Mere Mercenary alliance system and ceasefire like it works now in CW is perfect.

Interesting logic.. put in an even more interesting way. (Injustice?)

Here is how "say" is calculated.
Efficacy and reputation of your unit. (Power)
Negotiation Skills. (Diplomacy)

Power * Diplomacy = 'Say.'

---------------------------------------------------
What exactly constitutes "injustice" in a community warfare setting?

Raflik, on 27 January 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

NOTHING! Just because some merc. corp among CGB and CSJ or CW agreed on ceasefire IT'S NOT DAMN WHOLE CLAN. JUST SOME MERC UNITS.

I'm sure that makes losing a planet to JUST SOME MERC UNITS means that planet isn't realllllly gone.. just only 'kinda' gone...
Or: The units diverted to fighting JUST SOME MERC UNITS are actually fighting their intended enemies, not diverting resources towards unaccountable rogues in order to save planets/territory.

amirite?

[Joseph Mallan]

salkeee, on 27 January 2015 - 06:31 AM, said:

HOW CW BECOME A HORRIBLE EXPERIENCE FOR PLAYERS


For me less performance is bigest issue 2nd big issue is waiting 3rd kinda issue I need CBILLs

I know it sounds like the Players are ruining it for the players.

[Alaric Hasek]

While I agree that it's a pain, Community Warfare is Community Warfare. If you're not in a 12-person group you shouldn't even be playing CW. The groups that are good at it have been planning their units and practicing for months if not years now.

Duszanovsky, on 26 January 2015 - 10:23 AM, said:

My first post here.

I was pretty enthusiastic about CW launching, it really appeared to be a long time missing element of MWO experience. I've invested a lot of time and c-bills for making an optimal clan drop deck, that suits my playstyle and that contributes to winning battles.

It was fun at the beginning, matches seemed to vary, there were some different scenarios of how the battle could go.

Thing is, CW has become nightmarish. It is now dominated by IS 12-man stompers, focused on overusing PPC TDR-9 builds. It's simply ridiculous. Every game the scenario for 12 mans against randoms makes it unplayable. On the "cold" map any random team attacking is just sniped from a distance and killed by organized push, up to the point of spawn killing. Really? Is this the way you want to almost every match to be played out in 12-man against random scenario? This was to be intended CW experience for casual CW players? You're on a best way to even more shrink the player base for CW.

How can someone not notice that TDR-9 is completely OP when used in 12 man scenario? It's just a long range damage spamming mode that almost cannot be countered by casuals. Especially on the map which allows you to see the spawn point from a veryyyyyyy far distance, and create a firing line that chokes enemy reinforcements to death.

Either PGI does something with it (splitting queues for teams and pugs/rebalances decks) or I'll just simply resign from ANY CW activity. It will slowly but surely make CW a mode for 12 man try-hards with meta-builds.

Maybe this is what it was supposed to be. But then....why enabling solo players drop into matches?

This is just utter crap. Sorry.

[Utilyan]

Premies have no soul, lifeless clones, Urbanmech will save us.

.


When CW is right your gonna see Attrition of some kind so you can't run what you want. I hope to see something like Planetside2 resource points system. At best we will see the persistent battlefield rather then the counterstrike matches we are getting. or MW:LL. (was done in cryengine too?)

[Livewyr]

No more questions, RG?

[Das Grab]

I have said what i think of CW.
Now its time to bring the good points

1) it is Battletech with the contacts. Can make more money and xp in the public games. But its still is a Mech based game that alot like.

2) like how you can click on a friends nae and join unit. which that was in public games.

Sorry that all i can think of the good points of CW.

the problem with the maps are clan mechs are just tall enough to get their top mounted weapons to hit the IS mechs before they get the gates when defending. there was the light rush with kit foxes, and now its ERPPC and ERLL with heavy mechs wall at long range, when they attack. defending the clans have dire with long range weapons, with LRMS timbers, and ssrm6 fast moving heavies.

IS well lets see clans want the thunderbolt 9 killed. I havent seen more than 5 thunderbolts 9 with 3 ERPPC on the field at once. that is over 48 mechs.
SO clan will say is OP, then PGI with turn it down. IS will find a new mech to take its place. Clan will say that one is OP, PGI will dumb it down, BUt Clan mechs will not be touched at all. with high mounted weapons and 30,000 LRM fires with bap able to see a mech under ECM 1000 meters away.

Yes CW needs work. to bring balance. Also for those ppl that have higher pings, clan mechs are the best and they have better protection.

Ghost drops is the only way i could make money in CW. The wait times are a killer, when the its night here in NZ and i can play, is when hardly anyone is playing.

The money and xp in public games over a 30 mins can be higher, as you can drop game change mechs, and play again. cant do that in CW. I was doing a CW game die then go and do some Public games so i dont get bored waiting for the clans to kill my team mates.

I know its in the .... mode, and i know clans wouldnt play if they went down to 10 vs 12, but remember if PGI was to look at the books the clans thought it was a great honor to take on the more powerful armies, with lower powered mechs. that is how they did their bidding.

CW has 3 lances of IS mechs going up against 2 stars and half of clan mechs.

IF PGI stop PUGs from going into the game, then no one could play when i can play at 7pm NZST (UTC+12:00). there is a large base of players that are within the time zones near nz that have gone clans.

If PGI want to get away from ghost drops than put bots in that make up a team. that will stop those drops and give players something to fight. not with all weapons hitting legs or ct, as the turrets do.

Lets Clans drop runs. four clan mechs can take a mech out when its dropping from its dropship before it knows they are there. can an defenders out of bound area be setup???

out of bounds on the CW maps dont work at all. clan jump mechs when defending with long range weapons that hit a mile away sit up there.

why am i picking on the clanners, well look at the map. they have the best of both worlds, better heat, better range, better armour, and faster heavies.
I know its ture in the books as i have been playing BT and MW since 1987, both RPG and Computer games. still do today. I love the game and I would hate for PGI to wreak it. By limiting what mech can be played in CW. But if they looked up some of the mechs were limited to some of the clans. most of the time the commander would what mechs configs the pilots would take in clans.

Big problems is xp and money.

[Ax2Grind]

Livewyr, on 27 January 2015 - 06:14 AM, said:

What do you have to stop me from trolling CGB by joining CGB, grabbing a 12man of friends, and attacking CSJ or CW over and over?

That's just it...nothing is stopping you, and there shouldn't be anything stopping you. That still doesn't negate unit diplomacy. In fact you just showcased how you can form a rogue unit and go cause internal strife on a foreign border. Other groups can then come and talk to you...unit diplomacy. Sounds based off of real world politics to me. You don't need game rules determining your diplomatic status. Though that could be fun in and of itself I agree...it is not needed to have a rich political theater which I argue we already have.

Unit Diplomacy is real...yes, it's not "Faction" diplomacy...and it should never be since Factions will always be in flux with population. Players can and do have a huge impact on Unit Diplomacy. Players should have little to no impact on Faction Diplomacy...you don't get to tell other people how to play the game...you wouldn't like it.

Oh, and in case what you meant by this was to form a 12 man and break the COC (since you created another thread implying that)...there should always be rules against that. If you want to form a 12 man and fight on a border that others in that faction don;t want to fight on, that's fine...but if your wanting to break the COC to "sabotage" the game...no, that is against the rules of the game period.

Edited by Ax2Grind, 27 January 2015 - 02:41 PM.

[Mycrus]

I must be a unicorn, my drop deck permanently includes an XL400 boars head...

[Livewyr]

Ax2Grind, on 27 January 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

That's just it...nothing is stopping you, and there shouldn't be anything stopping you. That still doesn't negate unit diplomacy. In fact you just showcased how you can form a rogue unit and go cause internal strife on a foreign border. Other groups can then come and talk to you...unit diplomacy.

Talk is extremely cheap when you can do absolutely nothing to back it up.

Ax2Grind, on 27 January 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

Sounds based off of real world politics to me. You don't need game rules determining your diplomatic status. Though that could be fun in and of itself I agree...it is not needed to have a rich political theater which I argue we already have.

In real world politics, if negotiations fail- warfare ensues (also, negotiations involve some action either side can take to press or encourage the other side...) In MWO community warfare, if negotiations (talking) fails... you do some feet stamping and maybe talk a little trash...you might even apologize to the other faction, but there is nothing you can do to that unit. Nothing to put them in their place. If they want to screw over your faction all day long, they can. You can do nothing to either effectively stem them, or offer any incentive to stop.

Your unit, and every other unit in your faction (and others' factions) are toothless. (In fact, now with Faction grouping.. there is very little reason to be in a unit- you could do the same thing with just a group of friends.)

Ax2Grind, on 27 January 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

Unit Diplomacy is real...yes, it's not "Faction" diplomacy...and it should never be since Factions will always be in flux with population. Players can and do have a huge impact on Unit Diplomacy. Players should have little to no impact on Faction Diplomacy...you don't get to tell other people how to play the game...you wouldn't like it.

Unit diplomacy is a farce. Nobody has to give a damned what your unit or faction thinks.

If players shouldn't have an effect on faction diplomacy in community warfare- who should? PGI? Is this community warfare or that other queue with a nifty game mode and a RP flavor?

I wonder if you understand how negotiations and warfare work.
(I considered using actual examples from the real world current events, but I'd rather avoid a World Politics discussion.)
Can you point to me a warfare/diplomacy scenario in history with negotiations.. where the extent of negotiations have been "you shouldn't do that, you should be fighting X" or "come fight Y with us" without any pressure or incentive?

Ax2Grind, on 27 January 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

Oh, and in case what you meant by this was to form a 12 man and break the COC (since you created another thread implying that)...there should always be rules against that. If you want to form a 12 man and fight on a border that others in that faction don;t want to fight on, that's fine...but if your wanting to break the COC to "sabotage" the game...no, that is against the rules of the game period.

There was no avocation of breaking CoC (I left choice up to potential group-mates.) That is purely for the purpose of screwing everyone's ""diplomacy"" in turn, without them being able to do anything about it.

I would relish anyone coming to my TS to talk to me about why I shouldn't do that...where I could literally laugh the entire time... and go about my business knowing my group is untouchable.

Units, at present, are pointless. (Faction grouping put the final nail in that coffin.)

[RG Notch]

Livewyr, on 28 January 2015 - 04:49 AM, said:

I wonder if you understand how negotiations and warfare work.
(I considered using actual examples from the real world current events, but I'd rather avoid a World Politics discussion.)
Can you point to me a warfare/diplomacy scenario in history with negotiations.. where the extent of negotiations have been "you shouldn't do that, you should be fighting X" or "come fight Y with us" without any pressure or incentive?

I can point to pretty much every diplomatic action in the UN. If someone does something that the UN doesn't like, they publicly condemn them, with the threat of further strongly worded condemnations in the future.

[Joseph Mallan]

RG Notch, on 28 January 2015 - 05:28 AM, said:

I can point to pretty much every diplomatic action in the UN. If someone does something that the UN doesn't like, they publicly condemn them, with the threat of further strongly worded condemnations in the future.

And then the UN wait for US forces to be freed up to go fight!

[Livewyr]

RG Notch, on 28 January 2015 - 05:28 AM, said:

I can point to pretty much every diplomatic action in the UN. If someone does something that the UN doesn't like, they publicly condemn them, with the threat of further strongly worded condemnations in the future.

Hahahahaa!

Thanks for that!
I laughed so hard.

[Vassago Rain]

Joseph Mallan, on 28 January 2015 - 05:36 AM, said:

And then the UN wait for US forces to be freed up to go fight!

This only really happened during OPERATION FREEDOM, which us euros accurately predicted would be a fruitless and meaningless waste of money and time.

You want to see the UN do stuff, look at africa deployments, or the Kosovo conflict. Just remember that the UN exists to prevent wars, and end wars that cannot be prevented. It's not a tool for starting wars.

[LordKnightFandragon]

OP Calls them "Organized Push"......

More like "Gaggle of TDRs" just kinda conga lining down each of 3 fixed hallways on each map. The defense tries to shoot back, but FPS renders half the shots to the never ever sphere..

CW....was cool at first, but is novelty has worn off, its flaws are apparent and really needs some work.

We get a Skirmish mode soon...feb 3rd? Then atleast both sides will get the honor of being able to TDR9s spam from each other's spawn points and have equal chance to win....

[Livewyr]

Vassago Rain, on 28 January 2015 - 05:42 AM, said:

This only really happened during OPERATION FREEDOM, which us euros accurately predicted would be a fruitless and meaningless waste of money and time.

You want to see the UN do stuff, look at africa deployments, or the Kosovo conflict. Just remember that the UN exists to prevent wars, and end wars (with tiny states that cannot defend themselves anyways) that cannot be prevented. It's not a tool for starting wars.

FTFY
I'm sure the Ukraine is most grateful for the U.N's existence.

[Vassago Rain]

Livewyr, on 28 January 2015 - 05:47 AM, said:

FTFY
I'm sure the Ukraine is most grateful for the U.N's existence.

If you ask me, both NATO and the UN are horribly outdated, and don't have any real reason for existing in 2015, but old men are gonna cling to their old, outdated practices, no matter how irrelevant they've become.

What actually had an effect in the early 2000s doesn't accomplish anything today, as your example with Ukraine proves.

[Joseph Mallan]

Vassago Rain, on 28 January 2015 - 06:15 AM, said:

If you ask me, both NATO and the UN are horribly outdated, and don't have any real reason for existing in 2015, but old men are gonna cling to their old, outdated practices, no matter how irrelevant they've become.

What actually had an effect in the early 2000s doesn't accomplish anything today, as your example with Ukraine proves.

Remember these words once you are old and outdated Vass.

[Livewyr]

Vassago Rain, on 28 January 2015 - 06:15 AM, said:

If you ask me, both NATO and the UN are horribly outdated, and don't have any real reason for existing in 2015, but old men are gonna cling to their old, outdated practices, no matter how irrelevant they've become.

What actually had an effect in the early 2000s doesn't accomplish anything today, as your example with Ukraine proves.

The U.N. hasn't had any teeth since the 50s.. (even in the 50s they were minimally effectual)

The only way to maintain world balance in acute situations, is by force (and threat of force by extension).. (public condemnation is about as effective as MWO's 'negotiations' when it comes to the Hermit Kingdom or the Bear.. or generally anyone that doesn't care what anyone else thinks.

Edited by Livewyr, 28 January 2015 - 06:22 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Livewyr, on 28 January 2015 - 06:21 AM, said:

The U.N. hasn't had any teeth since the 50s.. (even in the 50s they were minimally effectual)

The only way to maintain world balance in acute situations, is by force (and threat of force by extension).. (public condemnation is about as effective as MWO's 'negotiations' when it comes to the Hermit Kingdom or the Bear.. or generally anyone that doesn't care what anyone else thinks.

We see how good Public Condemnations have worked on some here... Now imagine how effective it is on those with arms to respond with.

[Bigbacon]

WTH does Nato and the UN have to do with CW and MWO?